Craig Dahl

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Let's all take a step back and see this signing for what it really is. Dahl is NOT being signed as THE replacement for Dashon Goldson. If anything, he is being signed as the replacement for long lost Colin Jones who they traded away before last season to the Panthers.

Dahl is being signed for depth and his special teams ability, nothing more. Baalke is trying to rebuild an area of our team that slipped last year because we lost some key contributors (Costanzo, Jones, etc.). Not one of you were concerned when they signed Dan Skuta because it is obvious that he is not being asked to replace Willis or Bowman. Call me crazy, but that is pretty obvious to me.

One last thing, if the Niners made this move AFTER the draft, I would be worried. I think they have plenty of opportunities to find the next Goldson in late April. Take a deep breath, Zoners. This is not the end of the story at FS.

I just don't think this move makes much sense.

Safety is one of the most challenging positions for a rookie to learn coming into the NFL and unless we are prepared to see a lot of blown coverages in the secondary we don't want to be depending on our draft pick to man that position. So we still need to sign a veteran FS (like Michael Huff or Kerry Rhodes) and we now have that much less cap space to do this.

This move would make sense if we needed depth a safety, but our problem isn't depth, we need a starting caliber replacement. We already have CJ Spillman who was our best special teamer the past couple years, Trenton Robinson, Michael Thomas from the practice squad + a likely high draft pick on a safety. If we keep Dahl and Spillman and our draft pick, we have to cut Robinson who might be important to keep since we'll be losing Whitner next year. And how many special teamers can we really afford to keep at one position anyways? If we cut Spillman we replace one good special teams player for another.

No 3 years for 5 million isn't a lot of money. But when we have holes to fill and limited cap space to do it every dollar counts and spending money on a guy who isn't starting material and has a good chance of being cut is a questionable move at this point imo.

Originally posted by matt49er:
@evansilva
Craig Dahl racked up 24 tackles & 2 forced fumbles in 4 meetings with #49ers over past 2 yrs. Ideally suited as third safety/special teamer.

I hope he's only an addition and not a replacement.

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
I hope he's only an addition and not a replacement.

I'm pretty sure that's the case. 3 yr $5 million is typical backup/special teams money. We'll find a good replacement for Dashon in Rd 1 or 2 in the Draft.

Maybe he can represent white people proudly.

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Let's all take a step back and see this signing for what it really is. Dahl is NOT being signed as THE replacement for Dashon Goldson. If anything, he is being signed as the replacement for long lost Colin Jones who they traded away before last season to the Panthers.

Dahl is being signed for depth and his special teams ability, nothing more. Baalke is trying to rebuild an area of our team that slipped last year because we lost some key contributors (Costanzo, Jones, etc.). Not one of you were concerned when they signed Dan Skuta because it is obvious that he is not being asked to replace Willis or Bowman. Call me crazy, but that is pretty obvious to me.

One last thing, if the Niners made this move AFTER the draft, I would be worried. I think they have plenty of opportunities to find the next Goldson in late April. Take a deep breath, Zoners. This is not the end of the story at FS.

There are two holes in this statement which skews your logic.

1. Using the Skuta example as proof that Dahl is not a replacement. You would have a good point if say we lost one of our MLB's and the FO signed Skuta before finding a formidable replacement. Because that is the situation as far as the safety position. But we lost a very important piece in our secondary and we sign a potential 3rd string safety after watching 5 or 6 days of decent DB's fall off of the board? Thats next to stupidity.

2. Hoping the Niners "find the next Goldson in April". This is a move that would be best if we either won the SB or are in a rebuilding stage. It is not astute to not reach the zenith, then put complete faith in coaching a rookie on the fly and expect him to perform as well as Goldson in hostile playoff conditions, and have the same impact. Its more unreasonable than anything.

If the 9ers have strong confidence in signing Darrelle Revis, Woodson or Reed, only then will the rookie or Dahl be understandable. Anything other than that, It would seem that we have a strictly gem searching for much of nothing FO like the Patriots. Using that formula will get you to 2nd of 3rd place, but not the promise land.

I don't think it's an over reaction. We're replacing Dashon Goldson with Craig Dahl and a rookie. This is a gap we might have to live with for a year. Don't get me wrong that's life for a perennial contender. You're going to have let guys go and hope you can fill the void quick and cheap.

You could make the argument that Rogers was better than Clements. There's only one way to say it. Dahl is a significant downgrade from Goldson.

double post

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
There are two holes in this statement which skews your logic.

1. Using the Skuta example as proof that Dahl is not a replacement. You would have a good point if say we lost one of our MLB's and the FO signed Skuta before finding a formidable replacement. Because that is the situation as far as the safety position. But we lost a very important piece in our secondary and we sign a potential 3rd string safety after watching 5 or 6 days of decent DB's fall off of the board? Thats next to stupidity.

2. Hoping the Niners "find the next Goldson in April". This is a move that would be best if we either won the SB or are in a rebuilding stage. It is not astute to not reach the zenith, then put complete faith in coaching a rookie on the fly and expect him to perform as well as Goldson in hostile playoff conditions, and have the same impact. Its more unreasonable than anything.

If the 9ers have strong confidence in signing Darrelle Revis, Woodson or Reed, only then will the rookie or Dahl be understandable. Anything other than that, It would seem that we have a strictly gem searching for much of nothing FO like the Patriots. Using that formula will get you to 2nd of 3rd place, but not the promise land.

Some of you guys high a skewed view of what Goldson actually brought to the table. Goldson was far from a ball hawking FS. Goldson really wasn't that good in coverage. Goldson was great at covering ground or closing on somebody or supporting the run but when QB's threw to people he had to cover, he wasn't somebody who made plays. Who cares if Dahl beats out the other three FS's on this roster to include the practice squad. Would anybody have a problem if Dahl out plays the safety the 49ers will probably draft and the other safety's on the team?

Worse case scenario Dahl doesn't make this squad. Best case scenario is either dahl starts because he is better at this point than any other option the 49ers have or Dahl is third safety and special teams contributor.

The 49ers didn't spend a ton of money on this guy. This signing is the equivalent of a high priority undrafted free agent. If he makes the team, awesome. It doesn't matter what role he plays on this team. Vic F, Harbaugh and Baalke are much better at evaluating talent for their system than I am.

Looks like we are attacking safety in the draft... Baalke smoke screen ftw!

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Let's all take a step back and see this signing for what it really is. Dahl is NOT being signed as THE replacement for Dashon Goldson. If anything, he is being signed as the replacement for long lost Colin Jones who they traded away before last season to the Panthers.

Dahl is being signed for depth and his special teams ability, nothing more. Baalke is trying to rebuild an area of our team that slipped last year because we lost some key contributors (Costanzo, Jones, etc.). Not one of you were concerned when they signed Dan Skuta because it is obvious that he is not being asked to replace Willis or Bowman. Call me crazy, but that is pretty obvious to me.

One last thing, if the Niners made this move AFTER the draft, I would be worried. I think they have plenty of opportunities to find the next Goldson in late April. Take a deep breath, Zoners. This is not the end of the story at FS.

There are two holes in this statement which skews your logic.

1. Using the Skuta example as proof that Dahl is not a replacement. You would have a good point if say we lost one of our MLB's and the FO signed Skuta before finding a formidable replacement. Because that is the situation as far as the safety position. But we lost a very important piece in our secondary and we sign a potential 3rd string safety after watching 5 or 6 days of decent DB's fall off of the board? Thats next to stupidity.

2. Hoping the Niners "find the next Goldson in April". This is a move that would be best if we either won the SB or are in a rebuilding stage. It is not astute to not reach the zenith, then put complete faith in coaching a rookie on the fly and expect him to perform as well as Goldson in hostile playoff conditions, and have the same impact. Its more unreasonable than anything.

If the 9ers have strong confidence in signing Darrelle Revis, Woodson or Reed, only then will the rookie or Dahl be understandable. Anything other than that, It would seem that we have a strictly gem searching for much of nothing FO like the Patriots. Using that formula will get you to 2nd of 3rd place, but not the promise land.

1) All you have to do is follow the money. The answer is right in front of us -- 3 yr, $5 mil. This is the going rate for a good backup / special teams player. In comparison, C.J. Spillman' deal was for 3 yr, $4.2 mil. His role is good backup / special teams player. Same will apply to Dahl.

2) How is filling holes in the draft not astute? That is the very foundation of your football team. The best way to find a long-term answer to Goldson is through the draft. You can get a very talented player who can start right away in the first 2 rounds, and at a fraction of the cost compared to what you would pay in free agency.

You're talking as if there is no salary cap. Yes, of course the 49ers would want to keep Goldson, especially since they are a contender. But you can't afford to pay everyone. We're barely under the salary cap as it is, and future extensions to Kaep, Crab, Aldon, Iupati, and A.Davis are coming up soon. The best teams are aware not everyone can be retained, and they know how to compensate for lost talent by replenishing it through the draft. That's where the best bang for your buck is. That's how you build and maintain a talented, deep roster.

Not sure what this means, but Craig Dahl is listed as a strong safety on teams website.

http://www.49ers.com/team/roster.html

Originally posted by fister30:

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
There are two holes in this statement which skews your logic.

1. Using the Skuta example as proof that Dahl is not a replacement. You would have a good point if say we lost one of our MLB's and the FO signed Skuta before finding a formidable replacement. Because that is the situation as far as the safety position. But we lost a very important piece in our secondary and we sign a potential 3rd string safety after watching 5 or 6 days of decent DB's fall off of the board? Thats next to stupidity.

2. Hoping the Niners "find the next Goldson in April". This is a move that would be best if we either won the SB or are in a rebuilding stage. It is not astute to not reach the zenith, then put complete faith in coaching a rookie on the fly and expect him to perform as well as Goldson in hostile playoff conditions, and have the same impact. Its more unreasonable than anything.

If the 9ers have strong confidence in signing Darrelle Revis, Woodson or Reed, only then will the rookie or Dahl be understandable. Anything other than that, It would seem that we have a strictly gem searching for much of nothing FO like the Patriots. Using that formula will get you to 2nd of 3rd place, but not the promise land.

Some of you guys high a skewed view of what Goldson actually brought to the table. Goldson was far from a ball hawking FS. Goldson really wasn't that good in coverage. Goldson was great at covering ground or closing on somebody or supporting the run but when QB's threw to people he had to cover, he wasn't somebody who made plays. Who cares if Dahl beats out the other three FS's on this roster to include the practice squad. Would anybody have a problem if Dahl out plays the safety the 49ers will probably draft and the other safety's on the team?

Worse case scenario Dahl doesn't make this squad. Best case scenario is either dahl starts because he is better at this point than any other option the 49ers have or Dahl is third safety and special teams contributor.

The 49ers didn't spend a ton of money on this guy. This signing is the equivalent of a high priority undrafted free agent. If he makes the team, awesome. It doesn't matter what role he plays on this team. Vic F, Harbaugh and Baalke are much better at evaluating talent for their system than I am.

Ok, I'll solve this easy. Without Goldson's presence and plays made. Do we beat the Saints the last two times we played? Pats? Or any other team that attack the deep middle (where Goldson is majority of the time)? Goldson was the Foundation of our secondary and made it not only difficult, but dangerous to throw in the middle of the field. Does dahl have that ability? What safety at this point has that ability? Where is the logic in subtracting key defensive players in a division that is become stronger offensively by the day, without replacing that player with someone formidable?

"The 49ers didn't spend a ton of money on this guy. This signing is the equivalent of a high priority undrafted free agent. If he makes the team, awesome. It doesn't matter what role he plays on this team. Vic F, Harbaugh and Baalke are much better at evaluating talent for their system than I am"

So was Charles Darwin with evolution, but he has shown to NOT be infallible. Same applies for the 49ers FO that you assume to be immune to mistakes. It seems as though many of you subscribe to every word from the pundits and NFL network. When the truth is that they make bad calls just as you and I.

Originally posted by buck:
Not sure what this means, but Craig Dahl is listed as a strong safety on teams website.

http://www.49ers.com/team/roster.html

49ers.com has been slow and inaccurate for as long as I can remember (which is since the internet's inception now I think about it!)... The site is as good as it's ever been right now and is still entirely inadequate IMO.

Dahl played FS last season for STL, but I think he can back-up both FS and SS.

I expect he will compete with a highly-picked rookie for the FS spot this off-season and ultimately serve as a mentor while leading a revamped special teams unit..

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Let's all take a step back and see this signing for what it really is. Dahl is NOT being signed as THE replacement for Dashon Goldson. If anything, he is being signed as the replacement for long lost Colin Jones who they traded away before last season to the Panthers.

Dahl is being signed for depth and his special teams ability, nothing more. Baalke is trying to rebuild an area of our team that slipped last year because we lost some key contributors (Costanzo, Jones, etc.). Not one of you were concerned when they signed Dan Skuta because it is obvious that he is not being asked to replace Willis or Bowman. Call me crazy, but that is pretty obvious to me.

One last thing, if the Niners made this move AFTER the draft, I would be worried. I think they have plenty of opportunities to find the next Goldson in late April. Take a deep breath, Zoners. This is not the end of the story at FS.

There are two holes in this statement which skews your logic.

1. Using the Skuta example as proof that Dahl is not a replacement. You would have a good point if say we lost one of our MLB's and the FO signed Skuta before finding a formidable replacement. Because that is the situation as far as the safety position. But we lost a very important piece in our secondary and we sign a potential 3rd string safety after watching 5 or 6 days of decent DB's fall off of the board? Thats next to stupidity.

2. Hoping the Niners "find the next Goldson in April". This is a move that would be best if we either won the SB or are in a rebuilding stage. It is not astute to not reach the zenith, then put complete faith in coaching a rookie on the fly and expect him to perform as well as Goldson in hostile playoff conditions, and have the same impact. Its more unreasonable than anything.

If the 9ers have strong confidence in signing Darrelle Revis, Woodson or Reed, only then will the rookie or Dahl be understandable. Anything other than that, It would seem that we have a strictly gem searching for much of nothing FO like the Patriots. Using that formula will get you to 2nd of 3rd place, but not the promise land.

1) All you have to do is follow the money. The answer is right in front of us -- 3 yr, $5 mil. This is the going rate for a good backup / special teams player. In comparison, C.J. Spillman' deal was for 3 yr, $4.2 mil. His role is good backup / special teams player. Same will apply to Dahl.

2) How is filling holes in the draft not astute? That is the very foundation of your football team. The best way to find a long-term answer to Goldson is through the draft. You can get a very talented player who can start right away in the first 2 rounds, and at a fraction of the cost compared to what you would pay in free agency.

You're talking as if there is no salary cap. Yes, of course the 49ers would want to keep Goldson, especially since they are a contender. But you can't afford to pay everyone. We're barely under the salary cap as it is, and future extensions to Kaep, Crab, Aldon, Iupati, and A.Davis are coming up soon. The best teams are aware not everyone can be retained, and they know how to compensate for lost talent by replenishing it through the draft. That's where the best bang for your buck is. That's how you build and maintain a talented, deep roster.

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Let's all take a step back and see this signing for what it really is. Dahl is NOT being signed as THE replacement for Dashon Goldson. If anything, he is being signed as the replacement for long lost Colin Jones who they traded away before last season to the Panthers.

Dahl is being signed for depth and his special teams ability, nothing more. Baalke is trying to rebuild an area of our team that slipped last year because we lost some key contributors (Costanzo, Jones, etc.). Not one of you were concerned when they signed Dan Skuta because it is obvious that he is not being asked to replace Willis or Bowman. Call me crazy, but that is pretty obvious to me.

One last thing, if the Niners made this move AFTER the draft, I would be worried. I think they have plenty of opportunities to find the next Goldson in late April. Take a deep breath, Zoners. This is not the end of the story at FS.

There are two holes in this statement which skews your logic.

1. Using the Skuta example as proof that Dahl is not a replacement. You would have a good point if say we lost one of our MLB's and the FO signed Skuta before finding a formidable replacement. Because that is the situation as far as the safety position. But we lost a very important piece in our secondary and we sign a potential 3rd string safety after watching 5 or 6 days of decent DB's fall off of the board? Thats next to stupidity.

2. Hoping the Niners "find the next Goldson in April". This is a move that would be best if we either won the SB or are in a rebuilding stage. It is not astute to not reach the zenith, then put complete faith in coaching a rookie on the fly and expect him to perform as well as Goldson in hostile playoff conditions, and have the same impact. Its more unreasonable than anything.

If the 9ers have strong confidence in signing Darrelle Revis, Woodson or Reed, only then will the rookie or Dahl be understandable. Anything other than that, It would seem that we have a strictly gem searching for much of nothing FO like the Patriots. Using that formula will get you to 2nd of 3rd place, but not the promise land.

1) All you have to do is follow the money. The answer is right in front of us -- 3 yr, $5 mil. This is the going rate for a good backup / special teams player. In comparison, C.J. Spillman' deal was for 3 yr, $4.2 mil. His role is good backup / special teams player. Same will apply to Dahl.

2) How is filling holes in the draft not astute? That is the very foundation of your football team. The best way to find a long-term answer to Goldson is through the draft. You can get a very talented player who can start right away in the first 2 rounds, and at a fraction of the cost compared to what you would pay in free agency.

You're talking as if there is no salary cap. Yes, of course the 49ers would want to keep Goldson, especially since they are a contender. But you can't afford to pay everyone. We're barely under the salary cap as it is, and future extensions to Kaep, Crab, Aldon, Iupati, and A.Davis are coming up soon. The best teams are aware not everyone can be retained, and they know how to compensate for lost talent by replenishing it through the draft. That's where the best bang for your buck is. That's how you build and maintain a talented, deep roster.

Really?

1) All you have to do is follow the money. The answer is right in front of us -- 3 yr, $5 mil. This is the going rate for a good backup / special teams player. In comparison, C.J. Spillman' deal was for 3 yr, $4.2 mil. His role is good backup / special teams player. Same will apply to Dahl.

Yeah like if you "follow the money" with Kaep and Russell Wilson you would find 2 UNDERPAID players. That logic is utter ridiculous.

2) How is filling holes in the draft not astute? That is the very foundation of your football team. The best way to find a long-term answer to Goldson is through the draft. You can get a very talented player who can start right away in the first 2 rounds, and at a fraction of the cost compared to what you would pay in free agency.

Its not astute because the 9ers are not in a rebuilding stage and cannot afford to take steps backward after missing 2 chances for SB wins in a row. Please stop watching so much NFL network and use the common sense that I know you posses. Look at what the 9ers did in 2011. They did not release or trade Alex and go with the drafted guy. Look at Rodgers and Favre. That is the # 1 no no. You dont let a proven player go when you are so close to a championship in hopes that you can throw a rookie out there to dry and replace Goldson's presence and experience. WE ARE NOT REBUILDING.

You're talking as if there is no salary cap. Yes, of course the 49ers would want to keep Goldson, especially since they are a contender. But you can't afford to pay everyone. We're barely under the salary cap as it is, and future extensions to Kaep, Crab, Aldon, Iupati, and A.Davis are coming up soon. The best teams are aware not everyone can be retained, and they know how to compensate for lost talent by replenishing it through the draft. That's where the best bang for your buck is. That's how you build and maintain a talented, deep roster.

With the salarie cap considered. If knowing that you will allow Goldson to walk, whats the more glaring need on this team. A WR or A FS? Could they not have subjected a wide out to the draft? Thats about 6 mil GONE. And once again, you are lost in this preception that the 9ers are "building" when they actually need to replenish or renovate.

Puckdaddy....


1 ) Kaep and Russell are not good examples. They're both on their rookie contracts. Dahl was a free agent signing for depth. Completely different situations. Kaep will cost a lot to re-sign, as will Crab, Aldon, and others. This factored into the decision to let Goldson and the others go. The team is preparing for future extensions to younger players who are more important to the teams future. Sorry, but YOUR logic is utterly ridiculous.

2 ) Under perfect circumstances, Goldson would be brought back with no regards to money or future sustainability. That's not how the NFL works, that's not how free agency works. You can only carry so many high dollar, long-term contracts. Also, the 49ers felt too much money is being invested in the defense, and that it was not sustainable long-term. They are absolutely right. Goldson could have been re-signed, but it would have had future ramifications in our ability to re-sign other core players. You point to Alex's situation in 2011, which is a very poor example. Alex was on a 1 year prove it deal. Dashon was looking to cash in on a fortune. 1 year $5 mil < 5 years $42 mil. Big difference.

3) Let me ask you....who had the bigger impact in the playoffs, Boldin or Goldson? Losing Goldson hurts, but I'll take Boldin (1 yr $6 mil), and a 1st round safety (4 yr $7 mil), over Goldson (5 yr $42 mil) every time. It's all about maximizing what you can get for your money. Goldson is very good, but he's not THAT superior to what we can get at a fraction of the cost. The team needs to carefully allocate money into the offense and defense, and they have to wisely choose which players get the big money deals. This has nothing to do with rebuilding. This is a very talented team with many players worthy of big money, but it's just impossible to pay them all. Someone has to go, it was inevitable. To me, they've handled this situation brilliantly.